start_container

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true guard, the non-destructive preview default, the error-without-creating behavior on no match, and the asynchronous status transition where 'starting' is not a settled state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and path, then layers guard, preview/apply, error, and async caveats in a logical order. Slightly long with dense parentheticals, but every sentence adds decision-relevant information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a guarded write tool with an output schema present, it supplies everything an agent needs: safety guard, confirm semantics, failure mode, and interpretation of the returned after.status. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it clarifies that `container` matches a `name` or `tag`, and that `confirm` defaults to False for preview vs True to apply. Only `device_name` is left unexplained, which is minor.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('container') and even cites the underlying RouterOS path (`/container/start`). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling stop_container and the read-only containers tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the two-phase call pattern (confirm=False preview then confirm=True apply) and when each applies. It does not explicitly route against alternatives like stop_container or containers, but the context is clear enough to invoke correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.